bertrand russell why i am not a christian 1927

8/14/2019 Bertrand Russell Why I Am Not a Christian 1927

1/11

Why I Am Not A Christian

by Bertrand Russell

Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National SecularSociety, South London Branch, at Battersea Town all! "u#lished in $a%$hlet &or% in that sa%e

year, the essay su#se'uently achieved new &a%e with "aul (dwards) edition o& Russell)s #oo*,Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ...+197-!

.s your /hair%an has told you, the su#0ect a#out which a% oin to s$ea* to you toniht is34hy .% Not a /hristian!3 "erha$s it would #e as well, &irst o& all, to try to %a*e out what one

%eans #y the word Christian! t is used these days in a very loose sense #y a reat %any $eo$le!

So%e $eo$le %ean no %ore #y it than a $erson who atte%$ts to live a ood li&e! n that sense

su$$ose there would #e /hristians in all sects and creeds5 #ut do not thin* that that is the $ro$er

sense o& the word, i& only #ecause it would i%$ly that all the $eo$le who are not /hristians allthe Buddhists, /on&ucians, Moha%%edans, and so on are not tryin to live a ood li&e! do not

%ean #y a /hristian any $erson who tries to live decently accordin to his lihts! thin* that you%ust have a certain a%ount o& de&inite #elie& #e&ore you have a riht to call yoursel& a /hristian!

The word does not have 'uite such a &ull#looded %eanin now as it had in the ti%es o& St!

.uustine and St! Tho%as .'uinas! n those days, i& a %an said that he was a /hristian it was*nown what he %eant! ou acce$ted a whole collection o& creeds which were set out with reat

$recision, and every sinle sylla#le o& those creeds you #elieved with the whole strenth o& your

convictions!

What Is a Christian?

Nowadays it is not 'uite that! 4e have to #e a little %ore vaue in our %eanin o& /hristianity! thin*, however, that there are two di&&erent ite%s which are 'uite essential to any#ody callin

hi%sel& a /hristian! The &irst is one o& a do%atic nature na%ely, that you %ust #elieve in 8od

and i%%ortality! & you do not #elieve in those two thins, do not thin* that you can $ro$erly

call yoursel& a /hristian! Then, &urther than that, as the na%e i%$lies, you %ust have so%e *indo& #elie& a#out /hrist! The Moha%%edans, &or instance, also #elieve in 8od and in i%%ortality,

and yet they would not call the%selves /hristians! thin* you %ust have at the very lowest the

#elie& that /hrist was, i& not divine, at least the #est and wisest o& %en! & you are not oin to#elieve that %uch a#out /hrist, do not thin* you have any riht to call yoursel& a /hristian! &

course, there is another sense, which you &ind in Whitaker's Almanackand in eora$hy #oo*s,where the $o$ulation o& the world is said to #e divided into /hristians, Moha%%edans,Buddhists, &etish worshi$ers, and so on5 and in that sense we are all /hristians! The eora$hy

#oo*s count us all in, #ut that is a $urely eora$hical sense, which su$$ose we can

inore!There&ore ta*e it that when tell you why a% not a /hristian have to tell you two

di&&erent thins: &irst, why do not #elieve in 8od and in i%%ortality5 and, secondly, why donot thin* that /hrist was the #est and wisest o& %en, althouh rant hi% a very hih deree o&

%oral oodness!


2/11

But &or the success&ul e&&orts o& un#elievers in the $ast, could not ta*e so elastic a de&inition o&

/hristianity as that! .s said #e&ore, in olden days it had a %uch %ore &ull#looded sense! or

instance, it included he #elie& in hell! Belie& in eternal hell&ire was an essential ite% o& /hristian#elie& until $retty recent ti%es! n this country, as you *now, it ceased to #e an essential ite%

#ecause o& a decision o& the "rivy /ouncil, and &ro% that decision the .rch#isho$ o& /anter#ury

and the .rch#isho$ o& or* dissented5 #ut in this country our reliion is settled #y .ct o&"arlia%ent, and there&ore the "rivy /ouncil was a#le to override their 8races and hell was no

loner necessary to a /hristian! /onse'uently shall not insist that a /hristian %ust #elieve in

hell!

The Existence of God

To co%e to this 'uestion o& the e;istence o& 8od: it is a lare and serious 'uestion, and i& wereto atte%$t to deal with it in any ade'uate %anner should have to *ee$ you here until


3/11

is really no #etter than that! There is no reason why the world could not have co%e into #ein

without a cause5 nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always

e;isted! There is no reason to su$$ose that the world had a #einnin at all! The idea that thins%ust have a #einnin is really due to the $overty o& our i%aination! There&ore, $erha$s, need

not waste any %ore ti%e u$on the aru%ent a#out the irst /ause!

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very co%%on aru%ent &ro% natural law! That was a &avorite aru%ent all

throuh the eihteenth century, es$ecially under the in&luence o& Sir saac Newton and hiscos%oony! "eo$le o#served the $lanets oin around the sun accordin to the law o&

ravitation, and they thouht that 8od had iven a #ehest to these $lanets to %ove in that

$articular &ashion, and that was why they did so! That was, o& course, a convenient and si%$lee;$lanation that saved the% the trou#le o& loo*in any &urther &or e;$lanations o& the law o&

ravitation! Nowadays we e;$lain the law o& ravitation in a so%ewhat co%$licated &ashion that

(instein has introduced! do not $ro$ose to ive you a lecture on the law o& ravitation, asinter$reted #y (instein, #ecause that aain would ta*e so%e ti%e5 at any rate, you no loner have

the sort o& natural law that you had in the Newtonian syste%, where, &or so%e reason that no#ody

could understand, nature #ehaved in a uni&or% &ashion! 4e now &ind that a reat %any thins we

thouht were natural laws are really hu%an conventions! ou *now that even in the re%otestde$ths o& stellar s$ace there are still three &eet to a yard! That is, no dou#t, a very re%ar*a#le

&act, #ut you would hardly call it a law o& nature! .nd a reat %any thins that have #een

rearded as laws o& nature are o& that *ind! n the other hand, where you can et down to any*nowlede o& what ato%s actually do, you will &ind they are %uch less su#0ect to law than $eo$le

thouht, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averaes o& 0ust the sort that would

e%ere &ro% chance! There is, as we all *now, a law that i& you throw dice you will et dou#le

si;es only a#out once in thirtysi; ti%es, and we do not reard that as evidence that the &all o& thedice is reulated #y desin5 on the contrary, i& the dou#le si;es ca%e every ti%e we should thin*

that there was desin! The laws o& nature are o& that sort as reards a reat %any o& the%! They

are statistical averaes such as would e%ere &ro% the laws o& chance5 and that %a*es this whole#usiness o& natural law %uch less i%$ressive than it &or%erly was! @uite a$art &ro% that, which

re$resents the %o%entary state o& science that %ay chane to%orrow, the whole idea that natural

laws i%$ly a lawiver is due to a con&usion #etween natural and hu%an laws! u%an laws are#ehests co%%andin you to #ehave a certain way, in which you %ay choose to #ehave, or you

%ay choose not to #ehave5 #ut natural laws are a descri$tion o& how thins do in &act #ehave, and

#ein a %ere descri$tion o& what they in &act do, you cannot arue that there %ust #e so%e#odywho told the% to do that, #ecause even su$$osin that there were, you are then &aced with the

'uestion 34hy did 8od issue 0ust those natural laws and no others>3 & you say that he did itsi%$ly &ro% his own ood $leasure, and without any reason, you then &ind that there isso%ethin which is not su#0ect to law, and so your train o& natural law is interru$ted! & you say,

as %ore orthodo; theoloians do, that in all the laws which 8od issues he had a reason &or ivin

those laws rather than others the reason, o& course, #ein to create the #est universe, althouh

you would never thin* it to loo* at it i& there were a reason &or the laws which 8od ave, then8od hi%sel& was su#0ect to law, and there&ore you do not et any advantae #y introducin 8od

as an inter%ediary! ou really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and 8od does


4/11

not serve your $ur$ose, #ecause he is not the ulti%ate lawiver! n short, this whole aru%ent

a#out natural law no loner has anythin li*e the strenth that it used to have! a% travelin on

in ti%e in %y review o& the aru%ents! The aru%ents that are used &or the e;istence o& 8odchane their character as ti%e oes on! They were at &irst hard intellectual aru%ents e%#odyin

certain 'uite de&inite &allacies! .s we co%e to %odern ti%es they #eco%e less res$ecta#le

intellectually and %ore and %ore a&&ected #y a *ind o& %oraliAin vaueness!

The Argument from Design

The ne;t ste$ in the $rocess #rins us to the aru%ent &ro% desin! ou all *now the aru%ent&ro% desin: everythin in the world is %ade 0ust so that we can %anae to live in the world, and

i& the world was ever so little di&&erent, we could not %anae to live in it! That is the aru%ent

&ro% desin! t so%eti%es ta*es a rather curious &or%5 &or instance, it is arued that ra##its havewhite tails in order to #e easy to shoot! do not *now how ra##its would view that a$$lication! t

is an easy aru%ent to $arody! ou all *now oltaire)s re%ar*, that o#viously the nose was

desined to #e such as to &it s$ectacles! That sort o& $arody has turned out to #e not nearly sowide o& the %ar* as it %iht have see%ed in the eihteenth century, #ecause since the ti%e o&

Carwin we understand %uch #etter why livin creatures are ada$ted to their environ%ent! t is

not that their environ%ent was %ade to #e suita#le to the% #ut that they rew to #e suita#le to it,

and that is the #asis o& ada$tation! There is no evidence o& desin a#out it!

4hen you co%e to loo* into this aru%ent &ro% desin, it is a %ost astonishin thin that

$eo$le can #elieve that this world, with all the thins that are in it, with all its de&ects, should #e

the #est that o%ni$otence and o%niscience have #een a#le to $roduce in %illions o& years!

really cannot #elieve it! Co you thin* that, i& you were ranted o%ni$otence and o%niscienceand %illions o& years in which to $er&ect your world, you could $roduce nothin #etter than the


5/11

The oral Arguments for Deit!

Now we reach one stae &urther in what shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have%ade in their aru%entations, and we co%e to what are called the %oral aru%ents &or the

e;istence o& 8od! ou all *now, o& course, that there used to #e in the old days three intellectual

aru%ents &or the e;istence o& 8od, all o& which were dis$osed o& #y %%anuel


6/11

to redress the #alance!3 ou would say, 3"ro#a#ly the whole lot is a #ad consin%ent35 and that

is really what a scienti&ic $erson would arue a#out the universe! e would say, 3ere we &ind in

this world a reat deal o& in0ustice, and so &ar as that oes that is a reason &or su$$osin that0ustice does not rule in the world5 and there&ore so &ar as it oes it a&&ords a %oral aru%ent

aainst deity and not in &avor o& one!3 & course *now that the sort o& intellectual aru%ents

that have #een tal*in to you a#out are not what really %oves $eo$le! 4hat really %oves$eo$le to #elieve in 8od is not any intellectual aru%ent at all! Most $eo$le #elieve in 8od

#ecause they have #een tauht &ro% early in&ancy to do it, and that is the %ain reason!

Then thin* that the ne;t %ost $ower&ul reason is the wish &or sa&ety, a sort o& &eelin that there

is a #i #rother who will loo* a&ter you! That $lays a very $ro&ound $art in in&luencin $eo$le)sdesire &or a #elie& in 8od!

The Character of Christ

now want to say a &ew words u$on a to$ic which o&ten thin* is not 'uite su&&iciently dealtwith #y Rationalists, and that is the 'uestion whether /hrist was the #est and the wisest o& %en!

t is enerally ta*en &or ranted that we should all aree that that was so! do not %ysel&! thin*that there are a ood %any $oints u$on which aree with /hrist a reat deal %ore than the

$ro&essin /hristians do! do not *now that could o with i% all the way, #ut could o with

i% %uch &urther than %ost $ro&essin /hristians can! ou will re%e%#er that e said, 3Resistnot evil: #ut whosoever shall s%ite thee on thy riht chee*, turn to hi% the other also!3 That is

not a new $rece$t or a new $rinci$le! t was used #y Laotse and Buddha so%e DD or 6DD years

#e&ore /hrist, #ut it is not a $rinci$le which as a %atter o& &act /hristians acce$t! have no dou#t

that the $resent $ri%e %inister EStanley BaldwinF, &or instance, is a %ost sincere /hristian, #ut should not advise any o& you to o and s%ite hi% on one chee*! thin* you %iht &ind that he

thouht this te;t was intended in a &iurative sense!

Then there is another $oint which consider e;cellent! ou will re%e%#er that /hrist said,3=ude not lest ye #e 0uded!3 That $rinci$le do not thin* you would &ind was $o$ular in the

law courts o& /hristian countries! have *nown in %y ti%e 'uite a nu%#er o& 0udes who were

very earnest /hristians, and none o& the% &elt that they were actin contrary to /hristian

$rinci$les in what they did! Then /hrist says, 38ive to hi% that as*eth o& thee, and &ro% hi% thatwould #orrow o& thee turn not thou away!3 That is a very ood $rinci$le! our /hair%an has

re%inded you that we are not here to tal* $olitics, #ut cannot hel$ o#servin that the last

eneral election was &ouht on the 'uestion o& how desira#le it was to turn away &ro% hi% thatwould #orrow o& thee, so that one %ust assu%e that the Li#erals and /onservatives o& this

country are co%$osed o& $eo$le who do not aree with the teachin o& /hrist, #ecause theycertainly did very e%$hatically turn away on that occasion!

Then there is one other %a;i% o& /hrist which thin* has a reat deal in it, #ut do not &ind thatit is very $o$ular a%on so%e o& our /hristian &riends! e says, 3& thou wilt #e $er&ect, o and

sell that which thou hast, and ive to the $oor!3 That is a very e;cellent %a;i%, #ut, as say, it is

not %uch $ractised! .ll these, thin*, are ood %a;i%s, althouh they are a little di&&icult to liveu$ to! do not $ro&ess to live u$ to the% %ysel&5 #ut then, a&ter all, it is not 'uite the sa%e thin


7/11

as &or a /hristian!

Defects in Christ$s Teaching

avin ranted the e;cellence o& these %a;i%s, co%e to certain $oints in which do not#elieve that one can rant either the su$erlative wisdo% or the su$erlative oodness o& /hrist as

de$icted in the 8os$els5 and here %ay say that one is not concerned with the historical'uestion! istorically it is 'uite dou#t&ul whether /hrist ever e;isted at all, and i& e did we do

not *now anythin a#out hi%, so that a% not concerned with the historical 'uestion, which is a

very di&&icult one! a% concerned with /hrist as e a$$ears in the 8os$els, ta*in the 8os$elnarrative as it stands, and there one does &ind so%e thins that do not see% to #e very wise! or

one thin, he certainly thouht that is second co%in would occur in clouds o& lory #e&ore the

death o& all the $eo$le who were livin at that ti%e! There are a reat %any te;ts that $rove that!e says, &or instance, 3e shall not have one over the cities o& srael till the Son o& Man #e

co%e!3 Then he says, 3There are so%e standin here which shall not taste death till the Son o&

Man co%es into is *indo%35 and there are a lot o& $laces where it is 'uite clear that e#elieved that is second co%in would ha$$en durin the li&eti%e o& %any then livin! That was

the #elie& o& is earlier &ollowers, and it was the #asis o& a ood deal o& is %oral teachin!

4hen e said, 3Ta*e no thouht &or the %orrow,3 and thins o& that sort, it was very larely

#ecause e thouht that the second co%in was oin to #e very soon, and that all ordinary%undane a&&airs did not count! have, as a %atter o& &act, *nown so%e /hristians who did

#elieve that the second co%in was i%%inent! *new a $arson who &rihtened his conreation

terri#ly #y tellin the% that the second co%in was very i%%inent indeed, #ut they were %uchconsoled when they &ound that he was $lantin trees in his arden! The early /hristians did really

#elieve it, and they did a#stain &ro% such thins as $lantin trees in their ardens, #ecause they

did acce$t &ro% /hrist the #elie& that the second co%in was i%%inent! n that res$ect, clearly

e was not so wise as so%e other $eo$le have #een, and e was certainly not su$erlatively wise!

The oral %ro&lem

Then you co%e to %oral 'uestions! There is one very serious de&ect to %y %ind in /hrist)s %oral

character, and that is that e #elieved in hell! do not %ysel& &eel that any $erson who is really$ro&oundly hu%ane can #elieve in everlastin $unish%ent! /hrist certainly as de$icted in the

8os$els did #elieve in everlastin $unish%ent, and one does &ind re$eatedly a vindictive &ury

aainst those $eo$le who would not listen to is $reachin an attitude which is not unco%%on

with $reachers, #ut which does so%ewhat detract &ro% su$erlative e;cellence! ou do not, &orinstance &ind that attitude in Socrates! ou &ind hi% 'uite #land and ur#ane toward the $eo$le

who would not listen to hi%5 and it is, to %y %ind, &ar %ore worthy o& a sae to ta*e that line

than to ta*e the line o& indination! ou $ro#a#ly all re%e%#er the sorts o& thins that Socrateswas sayin when he was dyin, and the sort o& thins that he enerally did say to $eo$le who did

not aree with hi%!


8/11

ou will &ind that in the 8os$els /hrist said, 3e ser$ents, ye eneration o& vi$ers, how can ye

esca$e the da%nation o& ell!3 That was said to $eo$le who did not li*e is $reachin! t is not

really to %y %ind 'uite the #est tone, and there are a reat %any o& these thins a#out ell!There is, o& course, the &a%iliar te;t a#out the sin aainst the oly 8host: 34hosoever s$ea*eth

aainst the oly 8host it shall not #e &oriven hi% neither in this 4orld nor in the world to

co%e!3 That te;t has caused an uns$ea*a#le a%ount o& %isery in the world, &or all sorts o&$eo$le have i%ained that they have co%%itted the sin aainst the oly 8host, and thouht that

it would not #e &oriven the% either in this world or in the world to co%e! really do not thin*

that a $erson with a $ro$er deree o& *indliness in his nature would have $ut &ears and terrors o&that sort into the world!

Then /hrist says, 3The Son o& Man shall send &orth his is anels, and they shall ather out o&

is *indo% all thins that o&&end, and the% which do ini'uity, and shall cast the% into a

&urnace o& &ire5 there shall #e wailin and nashin o& teeth35 and e oes on a#out the wailinand nashin o& teeth! t co%es in one verse a&ter another, and it is 'uite %ani&est to the reader

that there is a certain $leasure in conte%$latin wailin and nashin o& teeth, or else it would

not occur so o&ten! Then you all, o& course, re%e%#er a#out the shee$ and the oats5 how at thesecond co%in e is oin to divide the shee$ &ro% the oats, and e is oin to say to the

oats, 3Ce$art &ro% %e, ye cursed, into everlastin &ire!3 e continues, 3.nd these shall o away

into everlastin &ire!3 Then e says aain, 3& thy hand o&&end thee, cut it o&&5 it is #etter &or thee

to enter into li&e %ai%ed, than havin two hands to o into ell, into the &ire that never shall #e'uenched5 where the wor% dieth not and the &ire is not 'uenched!3 e re$eats that aain and

aain also! %ust say that thin* all this doctrine, that hell&ire is a $unish%ent &or sin, is a

doctrine o& cruelty! t is a doctrine that $ut cruelty into the world and ave the world enerationso& cruel torture5 and the /hrist o& the 8os$els, i& you could ta*e i% asis chroniclers re$resent

i%, would certainly have to #e considered $artly res$onsi#le &or that!

There are other thins o& less i%$ortance! There is the instance o& the 8adarene swine, where itcertainly was not very *ind to the $is to $ut the devils into the% and %a*e the% rush down thehill into the sea! ou %ust re%e%#er that e was o%ni$otent, and e could have %ade the devils

si%$ly o away5 #ut e chose to send the% into the $is! Then there is the curious story o& the

&i tree, which always rather $uAAled %e! ou re%e%#er what ha$$ened a#out the &i tree! 3ewas hunry5 and seein a &i tree a&ar o&& havin leaves, e ca%e i& ha$ly e %iht &ind

anythin thereon5 and when e ca%e to it e &ound nothin #ut leaves, &or the ti%e o& &is was

not yet! .nd =esus answered and said unto it: )No %an eat &ruit o& thee herea&ter &or ever) ! ! ! and"eter ! ! ! saith unto i%: )Master, #ehold the &i tree which thou cursedst is withered away!)3

This is a very curious story, #ecause it was not the riht ti%e o& year &or &is, and you really

could not #la%e the tree! cannot %ysel& &eel that either in the %atter o& wisdo% or in the %atter

o& virtue /hrist stands 'uite as hih as so%e other $eo$le *nown to history! thin* should $utBuddha and Socrates a#ove i% in those res$ects!

The Emotional Factor

.s said #e&ore, do not thin* that the real reason why $eo$le acce$t reliion has anythin to do

with aru%entation! They acce$t reliion on e%otional rounds! ne is o&ten told that it is a very


9/11

wron thin to attac* reliion, #ecause reliion %a*es %en virtuous! So a% told5 have not

noticed it! ou *now, o& course, the $arody o& that aru%ent in Sa%uel Butler)s #oo*, Erewhon

Reisited! ou will re%e%#er that inErewhonthere is a certain is who arrives in a re%otecountry, and a&ter s$endin so%e ti%e there he esca$es &ro% that country in a #alloon! Twenty

years later he co%es #ac* to that country and &inds a new reliion in which he is worshi$ed

under the na%e o& the 3Sun /hild,3 and it is said that he ascended into heaven! e &inds that theeast o& the .scension is a#out to #e cele#rated, and he hears "ro&essors an*y and "an*y say to

each other that they never set eyes on the %an is, and they ho$e they never will5 #ut they are

the hih $riests o& the reliion o& the Sun /hild! e is very indinant, and he co%es u$ to the%,and he says, 3 a% oin to e;$ose all this hu%#u and tell the $eo$le o& (rewhon that it was

only , the %an is, and went u$ in a #alloon!3 e was told, 3ou %ust not do that, #ecause

all the %orals o& this country are #ound round this %yth, and i& they once *now that you did not

ascend into eaven they will all #eco%e wic*ed35 and so he is $ersuaded o& that and he oes'uietly away!

That is the idea that we should all #e wic*ed i& we did not hold to the /hristian reliion! t

see%s to %e that the $eo$le who have held to it have #een &or the %ost $art e;tre%ely wic*ed!ou &ind this curious &act, that the %ore intense has #een the reliion o& any $eriod and the %ore

$ro&ound has #een the do%atic #elie&, the reater has #een the cruelty and the worse has #een

the state o& a&&airs! n the socalled aes o& &aith, when %en really did #elieve the /hristian

reliion in all its co%$leteness, there was the n'uisition, with all its tortures5 there were %illionso& un&ortunate wo%en #urned as witches5 and there was every *ind o& cruelty $racticed u$on all

sorts o& $eo$le in the na%e o& reliion!

ou &ind as you loo* around the world that every sinle #it o& $roress in hu%ane &eelin, every

i%$rove%ent in the cri%inal law, every ste$ toward the di%inution o& war, every ste$ toward#etter treat%ent o& the colored races, or every %itiation o& slavery, every %oral $roress that

there has #een in the world, has #een consistently o$$osed #y the oraniAed churches o& theworld! say 'uite deli#erately that the /hristian reliion, as oraniAed in its churches, has #eenand still is the $rinci$al ene%y o& %oral $roress in the world!

'ow the Churches 'a(e "etarded %rogress

ou %ay thin* that a% oin too &ar when say that that is still so! do not thin* that a%!

Ta*e one &act! ou will #ear with %e i& %ention it! t is not a $leasant &act, #ut the churches

co%$el one to %ention &acts that are not $leasant! Su$$osin that in this world that we live intoday an ine;$erienced irl is %arried to a sy$hilitic %an5 in that case the /atholic /hurch says,

3This is an indissolu#le sacra%ent! ou %ust endure celi#acy or stay toether! .nd i& you staytoether, you %ust not use #irth control to $revent the #irth o& sy$hilitic children!3 No#odywhose natural sy%$athies have not #een war$ed #y do%a, or whose %oral nature was not

a#solutely dead to all sense o& su&&erin, could %aintain that it is riht and $ro$er that that state

o& thins should continue!

That is only an e;a%$le! There are a reat %any ways in which, at the $resent %o%ent, thechurch, #y its insistence u$on what it chooses to call %orality, in&licts u$on all sorts o& $eo$le


10/11

undeserved and unnecessary su&&erin! .nd o& course, as we *now, it is in its %a0or $art an

o$$onent still o& $roress and i%$rove%ent in all the ways that di%inish su&&erin in the world,

#ecause it has chosen to la#el as %orality a certain narrow set o& rules o& conduct which havenothin to do with hu%an ha$$iness5 and when you say that this or that ouht to #e done #ecause

it would %a*e &or hu%an ha$$iness, they thin* that has nothin to do with the %atter at all!

34hat has hu%an ha$$iness to do with %orals> The o#0ect o& %orals is not to %a*e $eo$leha$$y!3

Fear) the Foundation of "eligion

Reliion is #ased, thin*, $ri%arily and %ainly u$on &ear! t is $artly the terror o& the un*nown

and $artly, as have said, the wish to &eel that you have a *ind o& elder #rother who will stand #y

you in all your trou#les and dis$utes! ear is the #asis o& the whole thin &ear o& the%ysterious, &ear o& de&eat, &ear o& death! ear is the $arent o& cruelty, and there&ore it is no

wonder i& cruelty and reliion have one hand in hand! t is #ecause &ear is at the #asis o& those

two thins! n this world we can now #ein a little to understand thins, and a little to %asterthe% #y hel$ o& science, which has &orced its way ste$ #y ste$ aainst the /hristian reliion,

aainst the churches, and aainst the o$$osition o& all the old $rece$ts! Science can hel$ us to et

over this craven &ear in which %an*ind has lived &or so %any enerations! Science can teach us,

and thin* our own hearts can teach us, no loner to loo* around &or i%ainary su$$orts, noloner to invent allies in the s*y, #ut rather to loo* to our own e&&orts here #elow to %a*e this

world a #etter $lace to live in, instead o& the sort o& $lace that the churches in all these centuries

have %ade it!

What We ust Do

4e want to stand u$on our own &eet and loo* &air and s'uare at the world its ood &acts, its#ad &acts, its #eauties, and its uliness5 see the world as it is and #e not a&raid o& it! /on'uer the

world #y intellience and not %erely #y #ein slavishly su#dued #y the terror that co%es &ro% it!

The whole conce$tion o& 8od is a conce$tion derived &ro% the ancient riental des$otis%s! t isa conce$tion 'uite unworthy o& &ree %en! 4hen you hear $eo$le in church de#asin the%selves

and sayin that they are %isera#le sinners, and all the rest o& it, it see%s conte%$ti#le and not

worthy o& sel&res$ectin hu%an #eins! 4e ouht to stand u$ and loo* the world &ran*ly in the&ace! 4e ouht to %a*e the #est we can o& the world, and i& it is not so ood as we wish, a&ter all

it will still #e #etter than what these others have %ade o& it in all these aes! . ood world needs

*nowlede, *indliness, and courae5 it does not need a reret&ul han*erin a&ter the $ast or a

&etterin o& the &ree intellience #y the words uttered lon ao #y inorant %en! t needs a&earless outloo* and a &ree intellience! t needs ho$e &or the &uture, not loo*in #ac* all the ti%e

toward a $ast that is dead, which we trust will #e &ar sur$assed #y the &uture that our intellience

can create!

Electronic colo!hon" #his electronic edition of $Why I Am Not a Christian$ was first made

aaila%le %y &ruce ac(eod on his $Watchful Eye Russell Pa)e.$ It was newly corrected *from


11/11

Edwards+ N, -/01 in 2uly -3 %y 2ohn R. (en4 for the &ertrand Russell 5ociety. 5ee the

home!a)e of the &ertrand Russell 5ociety for more te6ts" htt!"77users.drew.edu78len47%rs.html

bertrand russell why i am not a christian 1927

Documents